A.F.L.-C.I.O. Backs Keystone Oil Pipeline, if Indirectly

Source: New York Times

The A.F.L.-C.I.O., the nation’s largest federation of unions, has issued an apparent endorsement of the Keystone XL oil pipeline — apparent because it enthusiastically called for expanding the nation’s pipeline system, without specifically mentioning Keystone.

And while some union leaders said the federation’s stance stopped short of an official endorsement, the nation’s building trades unions — eager for the thousands of jobs the pipeline would create — issued a statement saying the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s stance was a clear endorsement of the Keystone pipeline.

The labor federation’s embrace of the pipeline, even with some ambiguity, will give President Obama some political cover as he weighs whether to approve the pipeline, which would carry more than 700,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil each day to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

But the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s move is likely to strain the alliances that organized labor has sought to build with the environmental groups that are battling the pipeline.

1. If they endorse the Pipeline, they have lost my and

2. Neither the AFL-CIO nor the Allied Building Trades are environmental organizations

they're in the business of jobs and benefits. What do people expect? Do you think they would turn down the potential for thousands of good paying jobs because environmentalists don't think the pipeline is a good idea???

5. yes I do think the AFL CIO should reject the pipeline.

I am a retired labor leader and I think we make a big mistake of ignoring the general welfare of the entire country to promote jobs and benefits. Not a popular notion among some Union members, I admit, but we must remember that the bosses will give us the jobs of creating the ropes to hang us with.
It isnt just about jobs. Labor represents work not jobs. It also works to raise the value of labor and the lives of working people. Destroying the enviroment does not serve those goals. They are not mutually exclusive....jobs and enviroment. Labor needs to make that case for all of us.

11. Well then explain that to the Building Trades at a meeting when

they've got lots of people on the bench and watch the reaction especially when the pipeline will be built regardless. I've spent my time in labor too. Many years. While your notions of what labor should be is high minded but noble, they don't put food on the table nor do they pay a hospital bill or make a house payment. And that, for a labor leader, is priority #1.

15. yes indeed

but the trouble began much earlier with the commie witch hunts that robbed our movement of it's best organizers and most dedicated activists. George Meany was no great shakes either and I shutter to think what role he played in the Cold War with our dues money. That was not about protecting Free Trade Unionism, but rather to keep the world safe for our Capitalist Masters. Now we are on the verge of serfdom in a police state and need to recall the mistakes that were made way back when that brought us to this point.

29. I'd take George Meany back in heartbeat

27. I agree with you, Proletarianprincess

It's hard to be a union supporter and an environmentalist. I felt the same way when the President kept spouting "clean coal" during the campaign. We can not blindly follow the meme of jobs, jobs, jobs. (Beside the fact that the actual pay and duration of these fracking and drilling jobs often turns out to be less than promised.)
I look at these fossil fuel based jobs this way: when cars became popular, a lot of blacksmiths lost horse-shoeing jobs, but new technology created new jobs. That's just the natural march of time.

3. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. leadership is still tied to the notion that "brown jobs" are the key

to full employment.

They haven't quite got it yet that workers breathe, drink water, and eat food that, at some point, had to come in contact with the air and the water and the ground. That transformation, that awareness, is still to come in the House of Labor.

The answer isn't to give up on unions...it's to fight like hell to make the union leadership see that green values can also be full employment values...and must be, if working people are to live. And if our existing union leaders won't see that, we have to replace them.

8. Indeed it is...

I, and others, believe that the Labor movement was almost mortally wounded when it expelled the leftests, socialist and the communists during the red scare and later. They were the True believers and backbones of trade unionism. It is the radicals in any movement that serve as it's conscious and the instigators of progressive thought and change. Without them the Unions became soft on management and collaborators with corrupt and misguided US foreign policy around the world. This resulted in the dimunition of the Movement and a leadership structure that believed that serving it's members like an insurance company was more important that it's mission of raising the value of labor and the quality of life for workers.

4. This is like how the media unions were for SOPA.

6. The AFL-CIO's virtual endorsement should give Obama the political leverage to OK the pipeline.

Obama's been pretty consistent with the "all of the above" approach to energy security in the United States, despite opposition from environmental groups opposed to more oil drilling and natural gas drilling.

13. the new sec of state does not support it

16. He signed on knowing Obama was for it.

He might get the route changed so it doesn't go over Ogallala or something, maybe some concessions on revenue sharing and possibly some rather meaningless "no export" clause (which will be subverted through paper shuffling). But Obama ain't budging on this one. It is in US national interest that the oil flows through our ports.

18. Some in the Canadian oil industry are worried about just that.

CBC: Kerry speech ominous for Keystone XL pipeline

In yet another potentially ominous sign for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, John Kerry used his first major address as secretary of state on Wednesday to make an urgent call for comprehensive action on climate change. While Kerry made no mention of Keystone XL specifically, his State Department will soon decide the $7-billion pipeline's ultimate fate because it crosses an international border.

Keystone XL, which would carry bitumen to the U.S. Gulf Coast from Alberta's carbon-intensive oilsands, is considered a symbol of "dirty oil" by American environmentalists. They're stepping up their efforts to urge President Barack Obama to make good on his recent rhetoric on climate change by rejecting the pipeline.

There have been signals that the pleas of environmentalists are not falling upon deaf ears at the White House.

Kerry's remarks on Wednesday came less than two weeks after his meeting at the State Department with Baird. He was non-committal about Keystone in his joint news conference with Baird, and was rumoured to have been tepid about the pipeline during their private meeting.

9. From Cornell University's Global Labor Institute

» The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
» There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
» The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
» KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
» KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.
» The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department. Based on data provided by TransCanada to the State Department, only between 506 and
1,387 workers would be hired locally. A state-by-state breakdown indicates that KXL will create between 93 and 257 jobs for residents in Montana; 121-333 jobs in South
Dakota; 90-248 jobs in Nebraska; 6-18 jobs in Kansas; 41-113 jobs in Oklahoma; and
156-470 jobs in Texas.18
» Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent
pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive
economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released
over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars
worth of damage in the United States.

20. With no political leadership or funding for Green Jobs

and our Electeds nearly all kissing Big Oil and Gas ass, I doubt they see much choice.

I am a union member too, and while my Sisters and (mostly)Brothers in the Trades are not always the most progressive people on the planet, those I've talked to would just as soon or even rather work in solar/wind/water/geothermal .... but where are the jobs? Plumbers, Laborers, Electricians, etc., get jobs in dirty energy.

I myself am adamantly opposed to Keystone, Artic drilling, nuclear, fracking - but I find it pretty hard to blame the Trades when that's their livelihood, our very own President is up there stroking Big Dirty Energy, and no or next to no funds or - as important - political capital is being spent on transforming our economy and consumption to clean, green, and sustainable.

21. It's unfortunate, but I don't think that will change much, either.

Not only has SecState Kerry voiced his opposition to the pipeline, but even the President hasn't exactly been a friend of the project.....for all the political posturing he did back in the day, his actions in the days of his first term spoke very differently.

Freshwest compiled a mini-archive of past Keystone dealings a little while back and I'll be reposting them, because it's just that important:

Since 2009, there were complaints, concluding in the Koch brothers creating the Tea Party in 2010 to stop Obama's agenda.

Some may not remember, but every budget bill Boehner offered had to be fought over as he put approval for the pipeline at the head of them.

From 2011:

Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved

State of play: Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill are taking steps this week to impose a political price on the White House for delaying a final decision on the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline until after the 2012 election.

Senate GOP leadership on Wednesday promoted new legislation that would force a much faster decision on TransCanada Corp.’s proposed $7 billion Alberta-to-Texas pipeline.

They argue the bill (which E2 covered here and here) will help create jobs quickly, and alleged the recent administration delay was a political decision to appease green groups.

The pipeline puts the White House in a bind by splitting President Obama’s base — green groups loathe the project while a number of unions want it to proceed without further delay...

President Obama warned congressional Republicans today that he will reject any attempt to tie a payroll tax cut extension to approval of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which supporters say would create thousands of new jobs.

“Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice,” Obama said during a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Last month, the administration postponed a decision on the pipeline to allow for an extended environmental review that’s expected to last until after the 2012 campaign.

“The payroll tax cut is something that House Republicans and Senate Republicans should want to do regardless of any other issues,” Obama added. “The question’s going to be, are they willing to vote against a proposal that ensures that Americans, at a time when the recovery is still fragile, don’t see their taxes go up by a thousand dollars? So it shouldn’t be held hostage for any other issues that they may be concerned about.”

But Republicans insist Obama is playing politics with a project that has strong bipartisan support, including from labor unions, and which would help boost the lagging economy. Harper has also publicly pressured the administration to approve the deal...

Was President Obama right or wrong to reject the Keystone XL pipeline?

Last week, President Obama denied approval of a permit to build the pipeline, which as proposed would have sent oil from Alberta, Canada's tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. Obama said the "arbitrary" deadline set by congressional Republicans was not enough time to complete a review of the proposal for an alternate route that would not go through an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska. TransCanada, the Canadian company seeking to build the pipeline, immediately said it would apply for another permit...

The head of the US's biggest oil and gas lobbying group said on Wednesday that the Obama administration will face serious political consequences if it rejects a Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline that has been opposed by environmental groups.

Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline would definitely play a role in this year's national elections.

Much to the chagrin of the “drill baby drill” crowd, the President has kept the oil industry out of ANWAR, and recently disallowed the XL-Pipeline. To let Republicans tell it, the oil supply and employment in the industry have been stymied by this President. It is a lie.

From The Los Angeles Times:

Oil imports down, domestic production highest since 2003

“.... the United States reduced net imports of crude oil last year by 10%, or 1 million barrels a day. The U.S. now imports 45% of its petroleum, down from 57% in 2008, and is on track to meet Obama’s long-term goal, the administration maintains.

Imports have fallen, in part, because the United States has increased domestic oil and gas production in recent years....Current production, about 5.6 million barrels a day, is the highest since 2003.

The U.S. has been the world’s largest producer of natural gas since 2009, the report says. Use of renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, is still relatively small but has doubled since 2008.

The report credits administration policies for the improvements. It cites initiatives such as the higher fuel efficiency of passenger cars, the jump in renewable energy output, and improved weatherization of 1 million homes.

A little more dirt from the above. Is this too many paragraphs? Tell me:

Boehner has significant investments in the Keystone XL Pipeline Project so he has actively promoted an agenda that will benefit him financially. If the Republicans were really interested in job creation, they would have passed the infrastructure bill. Construction workers could repair roads and bridges from now until eternity, but then again, I guess Boehner’s not invested in I-95.

And even the rightwingers know that Obama has been against the pipeline since the last three years, according to this undated blog here. If someone wants anything removed, just let me know. Here's a lament penned by a Keystone supporter, extra emboldening and underlining is mine:

President Obama Denies Keystone Pipeline Permit - By LD Jackson

Let’s all be honest with ourselves. Did anyone really believe President Barack Obama would approve the permit for the Keystone Pipeline and allow it to go forward? Even though the preliminaries are finished, the environmental studies have been done, alternate routes through Nebraska have been proposed, etc., President Obama still thinks more time is needed. He originally wanted to put the decision off until 2013. You know, after the 2012 election is out-of-the-way. The Republicans in Congress nixed that plan and tied the permit to the payroll tax cut or holiday issue. From November 30, 2011, the President had 60 days to approve or disapprove the permit. He made his decision yesterday and as is usually the case, he blamed the Republicans for forcing his hand. His excuse? We need more time, at least another 18 months, to do yet another review. As far as I am concerned, that statement ranks right up at the top of the biggest lies the man has told since he took office.

Does anyone want to venture a guess how long the reviews for the pipeline have already been going on? Try three years. That’s right, this project has already been in the works for three years. More than that, if you count the time and effort Canada has expended on its end. Three years, yet our current President thinks that isn’t enough time. He wants another review, mainly about the environmental impact (isn’t that always his excuse), which will take about 18 months. Even though the environment studies have been finished and any concerns addressed, he needs more time.

The President is walking a fine line with this. On the one hand, he has the labor unions, who favor the project. That’s why they call them labor unions. They want the jobs, and I happen to agree. Turn the coin over and you have an issue that is near and dear to Obama’s heart, the environment and clean energy. If he approves the pipeline, he will be facing the wrath of multiple environmental groups, including some that have threatened to stop the flow of donations they are providing to his reelection campaign. As much as he says he wants to create jobs, the environment will always win this fight in the President’s heart. He will always side with the environment, even if their argument is bogus. Once again, this should surprise no one...

According to the transcript of the secretly recorded tape, Charles Koch was chuckling like a six-year old. Koch was having a hell of a laugh over pilfering a few hundred dollars' worth of oil from a couple of dirt-poor Indians on the Osage Reservation.

Why did Koch, worth about $3 billion at the time (now $20 billion) need to boost a few bucks from some Indian in a trailer home? Koch answered:

"I want my fair share -- and that's all of it."

Now "all of it" includes a pipeline, the Keystone XL, which would run the world's filthiest oil, crude made from tar sands, down from Canada to his family's refinery on the Gulf Coast of Texas...

Freshwest also believes that part of the reason for the sequester may just be a way for the GOP to get back at the President, including the fact that he continously blocked the project. Regardless of how critical you may be of the POTUS, you've got to be fooling yourself if you can't see what's plainly obvious.....

(Of course, I'll also point out who knows what'll happen in the second term? Stranger turnarounds have definitely happened, so let's not count our chickens yet.....but at least there's some good signs out there at the moment. :hi